Moshannon Valley detainee removal case heard by judge

ACLU makes final arguments on behalf of alleged member of Venezuelan gang

JOHNSTOWN -- Federal District Judge Stephanie L. Haines on Monday afternoon heard final arguments on a petition by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the proposed deportation of an alleged member of the Venezuelan criminal gang known as Tren de Aragua.

The removal of the Venezuelan native, who entered the United States with his wife and family in 2023, is predicated on a mid-March proclamation signed by President Donald Trump, in which he invoked a 1798 statute called the Alien Enemies Act.

The Alien Enemies Act gave the president broad powers to detain and deport non-citizens of enemy nations who posed a danger to the United States.

The president's proclamation focused on members of Tren de Aragua, defined as a transnational criminal organization that operates "both within and outside the United States."

The ACLU is seeking to enjoin the Trump administration from applying the AEA in the case of a former resident of the Moshannon Valley Processing Center, referred to by his initials, A.S.R.

A.S.R. and the ACLU have asked the injunction apply to an entire "class" who are in the same situation -- facing deportation as alien enemies.

During Monday's hearing, Haines heard arguments from attorneys Daniel Calindo and Lee Gelernt representing the ACLU and attorneys Michael K. Velchik and Michael Leo Ivory for the government.

Gelernt argued that the AEA has been used only in time of war, and he argued that the act was appropriate only when military action comes into play.

Trump and the government contended that it is appropriate when a group pursues a "predatory incursion" into the country, which involves kidnappings, murders and other forms of mayhem.

Haines closely questioned the lawyers concerning that point.

Gelernt was also concerned that alleged members of Tren de Aragua have sufficient notification that they face deportation and time to launch a legal challenge.

A.S.R., he pointed out, has yet to be certified as a member of Tren de Aragua, yet he was whisked away from Moshannon Valley to another detention center in Texas.

He said A.S.R. vigorously denies he is part of TdA.

"We don't think he is TdA," Gelernt explained.

The hearing lasted over an hour, and Haines stated she will issue an opinion in the case.

Meanwhile, Haines last week issued a temporary restraining order preventing A.S.R.'s deportation.

That order remains in effect until May 13.

The controversy before Haines began on March 15, when Trump made the proclamation that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, but are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents, are subject to apprehension and removal as Alien Enemies.

It is estimated that at least 137 alleged members of the organization were quickly removed and deported, but the proclamation also drew immediate criticism because of the lack of notice given to those being apprehended and the very short period of time they had to respond (12 days) to the removal effort.

Civil rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union filed challenges to the use of the Alien Enemies Act on behalf of alleged Tren de Aragua members.

The ACLU sought a temporary restraining order prohibiting the removal of A.S.R. -- and any other individual in the same situation at Moshannon Valley -- from western Pennsylvania and the United States.

Within minutes of the filing of the ACLU request for a restraining order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed A.S.R. from Moshannon Valley and, within nine hours, relocated him to a detention center in Anson, Texas.

Despite the relocation of A.S.R., Haines approved the temporary restraining order.

The ACLU then filed a request for a preliminary injunction.

Both sides agreed that even though A.S.R. was no longer in western Pennsylvania, Haines still had jurisdiction over the case because it was filed in the Johnstown District Court prior to his removal.

In the request for a preliminary injunction, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to apprehend and deport A.S.R.

The proclamation and the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act by the government violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and the due process afforded to immigrants under the Immigration and Naturalization Act -- that A.S.R. receive proper notice of removal and a "meaningful opportunity" to challenge his designation as an alien enemy -- the ACLU contends.

It argued in court documents that the Alien Enemies Act is a wartime measure that cannot be used in this situation.

There is neither an invasion or a predatory incursion by a foreign power, the ACLU contended.

The Trump administration countered the ACLU argument by stating Tren de Aragua is a transnational criminal organization that conducts kidnappings, extorts businesses, bribes public officials and has authorized its members to kill U.S. law enforcement.

The administration contended Tren de Aragua has ties to the Venezuelan government and the organization is a threat to the security of the United States.

It also contended Tren de Aragua has ties to a cartel that wants to "flood the United States with drugs."

Finally, the president challenged the jurisdiction of the courts to "supervise" the administration's foreign policy, intelligence gathering and matters concerning terrorism.

The court lacks the jurisdiction to remove the proclamation and to enjoin the president's innovation of the Alien Enemies Act, the government argued.

A case similar to that of A.S.R. was argued last week in the Southern District Court in Texas on behalf of alleged Tren de Aragua members J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H.

The district judge in that case, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., ruled against Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act.

"The Executive Branch has and will continue to rely on the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove aliens found to represent a danger to the country.

"The question that this lawsuit presents is whether The President can utilize a specific statute, the AEA, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of TdA.

"As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the President's invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms," Rodriguez stated.